What's so wrong with Kerry?

It’s no great secret that Bush is an extremely polarizing president. Nor is it a great secret that many people who are supporting Kerry are doing so largely because he’s not Bush. I’m certainly in that camp. I absolutely despise Bush and his presidency, and Kerry seems like a reasonably decent guy, for a politician. So I plan to vote for him.

However, I’ve seen a number of comments on the SDMB along the lines of “well, I’m a republican, and I’m not crazy about Bush, but dear lord, I’m sure as hell not voting for Kerry”.
So my question is: what is so bad about Kerry? Why would anyone hate, or strongly dislike, him?
(I’m not asking to be convinced of this view, I’m just asking what the grounds are for it at all… by way of comparison, the people who hate Bush have a long list of reasons which, even if you don’t agree with them, you would have to grant are prima facie pretty good reasons to hate a president…)

Becuase many of them think Bush is not truly Conservative (spending, foreign involvment); hence Kerry is even worse.

It seems to me they are letting Bush and Rove define Kerry for them.

What some call “flip-flops,” which is one of the GW campaign charges, can really be a change in opinion in light of further information. Only a damned fool never changes his mind. And, of course one of GW’s supporters’ proudest claims is that he “sticks to his guns.” They ought to ask Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie and William Travis about that course of action as a hard and fast rule.

And of course if we pay attention to recent history we can also realize that the GW campaign’s claims might be, gasp, lies.

[ul]
[li]He went to Yale and was a member of the Skull and Bones society. Leaving all conspiracy nutjob theories aside, it is at least clear that this is a group rather interested in power and influence is a cultish and creepy way. That being said, it would be really cool to see a reporter bring this up while he and Bush were debating to see if they would both get up and leave the room (this is required by the laws of the Skull and Bones, IIRC). [/li][li] He (or his mother at least) is a member of the Forbes family and he is currently married to a filthy rich heiress of the Heinz catsup family. Again, no real smoking gun here but none of this points to someone that would have a real understanding of the non-filthy rich concerns that I face day to day. [/li]
[li] He voted for the current Iraq War, but against reconstruction funding (note: I realize that it can be argued that voting against reconstruction could be seen as a vote against the corrupt sweetheart contracts that were proposed, so I may revise this point on reflection). To me this points to several things:[/li][/ul]
[list=a]
[li] That he was kowtowing to the “you must hate America if you don’t support our president” BS. And that he lacks reasonable follow through (as in if we decide to blow the crap out of another country on spurious claims of massive threatening WMD and engage in regime change we had damn well clean up after ourselves later.[/li]
Or
[li] That he saw Howard Dean getting some political traction with opposing the war and decided to jump on that band wagon rather than having a spine in the first place and standing up to the administration as he should have done.[/li][/list]
[ul]
[li] Finally, although I am sure that more will come up as time passes and that I could think of more if I tried, on a more personal note, there is just something about the way that he looks and talks that makes me want to punch him in the face. He reminds me of that kid that we all had in school growing up that was somehow socially inept in a way that would cause other kids to wait in line to beat him up, the teachers to be vaguely repulsed by and who always smelled of milk. Truly, just looking at him and listening to him brings out my dark side.[/li][/ul]

I guess I could be thought of as one of those Republicans who is not satisfied with Bush. I actually switched parties to support Wes Clark in the primaries, even though I was an enthusiastic Bush supporter in 2000.

I don’t think there is anything terrible about Kerry, but I do get the feeling from both comments he has made and from people campaigning for him that he is not very welcoming to Republicans looking to cross over.

I saw film of him going after someone who asked him a question by saying something along the lines of…“Who did you vote for in 2000…I bet you were a Bush supporter” While the guy was probably a heckler, and I’m sure they can be annoying at times, it gave me the impression that if you were not a lifelong Democrat, your opinion wasn’t valid to him.

I also spent a lot of time on the Kerry Town Hall discussion list after Wes Clark pulled out of the race, looking to learn more about Kerry and hopefully get excited about supporting his candidacy. There were a noticable amount of comments that were very derogatory to anyone who voted for Bush in 2000, making for an atmosphere that was somewhat hostile.

I know that I shouldn’t attribute the comments of Kerry supporters to Sen. Kerry, but I do think that he is, in at least a small way, responsible for the tone of his campaign. I don’t know if my impressions of the welcome I feel as a new Democrat are enough to send me back to voting for Bush again, or if I’ll stick with Kerry, or even consider a third party candidate, but I do know that at this point, there is no one that I’m excited about in 2004.

It’s been pointed out before, but he bears a striking resemblance to Lurch:

I think the main objection is he’s a consummate politician, and his voting record is at times paradoxical to say the least. One gets the sense he’s constantly testing the winds of public oppinion, and changing his stance, sometimes radically, in a less-than visionary, more opportunistic-seeming manner. In other words, does he have any real principles? Arguably, yes, but his record on Iraq, for instance, is certainly not a confidence-builder: Voted against GWI, for GWII, against reconstruction, yet criticizes the pres. on “arbitrary deadlines”, which would seem to suggest he thinks the president wants to shirk reconstruction responsibilities. Sometimes, the guy is just all over the map. He dumps his medals in the trash. Well, no, actually, they were somebody else’s medals, and his are up on the wall. He doesn’t support gay marriage, but nor does he support Bush’s proposed constitutional amendment. He’s pro civil unions, but it’s already too late for that, as MA has effectively made gay marriage legal. How conveniently irrelevant a position. Often, when he takes a stand, it’s moot, and if it isn’t, it’s often not all that timely or courageous. He seems to dip his toes in many a time before taking the plunge.

Put me in the “well, at least he’s not Bush” camp. Oh, and he’s unlikely to nominate another Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. Maybe he’ll be better for the environment, too. Iraq is such a clusterfuck now, I’m surprised he still wants to run, but hey, could it be any worse under a new administration? God help him if he actually does get elected, though. What an inheretance.

Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that you were given that sense by less than disinterested parties, rather than just that “sense” materializing out of the ether? I mean, most of your criticisms are verbatim from conservative pundits. Not saying that you’re wrong, or misinformed, but aren’t we missing a side of the debate here and only hearing the characterizations of his enemies?

And that’s my problem with him: he’s a lousy campaigner.

Hey, binarydrone, didja know Bush was in Skull & Bones too, like his father? And that his family is rich too? And that Bush was for the war but against spending much on reconstruction (or anything at all in Afghanistan’s case)?

That may not make Kerry any better, but it doesn’t make him any worse, either. The part about wanting to punch him in the face is your problem.
Mr. Kobayashi, he’s also been compared to Herman Munster and an Easter Island statue. An anonymous WH staffer observed during the primaries that “He looks French”.

athansor, you’re upset with the tenor of the **Kerry ** campaign?
If that’s the level upon which you guys are making your decisions …

I did, that is why I wrote:

And don’t get me wrong. Given the alternatives, I do plan to vote for the guy. I do know that the personal dislike that I have for his appearance/speech/mannerisms are just that, personal. I guess that in general I am disappointed that this is the best that we can come up with (that goes for both sides of the political spectrum).

Well, yes, I am upset with the “tenor of Kerry’s campaign”. While that’s certainly not the only factor that goes into my decision, I don’t think it is completely insignificant.

If I’m not completely off base in my assessment, why is it that Kerry and his supporters are not welcoming of the multitudes of Republicans and conservative leaning folks that are put off by Bush?

Also, is the tone by which a person campaigns completely unrelated to the tone by which they will govern if they get elected?

I’ll certainly agree with that. And I think you make a good case that Kerry isn’t strongly principled on every issue. I’m bothered by his soft stance on gay marriage as well, but since Bush is strongly against it, he’s certainly not an improvement. The one I thought was the most principled was Kucinich (and maybe Sharpton), and neither stood a snowball’s chance in hell.

But the exact same thing was said about Clinton, and IMO he turned out to be an effective president (that is, if you like prosperity). So far, I’m not seeing anything horrible about Kerry. The unfortunate reality of politics is that a person who doesn’t do at least some pandering will never get elected.

The guy just doesn’t appeal to me as President. The campaign platforms on his site are mostly empty (and at times poorly proofread) rhetoric - perhaps that’s the norm for politicians, but it’s a minus in my book. I agree with him on Iraq, but beyond that he was the worst of the more credible Dem candidates from where I stand. He also has the charisma of a dead fish.

Is he better than Bush? Probably. But my state (CA) is solidly blue, so I may as well vote for the Libertarian candidate.

A gem from Kerry’s site about Native Americans:

Obviously a typo, but we can use all the laughter we can while the world descends into a quagmire of shit.

Why is it that you think so?

Oh, lessee … “I’m a compassionate conservative”, “I’m a uniter, not a divider”, “If we’re humble, they’ll welcome us” …

Well, I think so from the reasons I stated in my post, for instance, Sen. Kerry shutting down a person with a question by saying something like " I bet you voted for Bush in 2000", as if a question from a former Bush supporter was not worth answering, or comments like “everyone who voted for Bush in 2000 should be taken out and shot” from a poster on the Kerry discussion board.

And like I said, I’m not a Bush supporter, and I do have problems with comments from Bush like “I’m a uniter, not a divider”

So, is Kerry a uniter or a divider?

No, he’s one of the senators of my state, and I’ve been following him for a long time. Believe it or not, I’ve actually met the guy at a fundraiser, though I’m sure he doesn’t remember me at all. He and the catsup lady have been the talk of the town for many years, and I’ve had plenty of time to form an oppinion without the help of the Fox Network, thanks. Hell, his most recent criticisms about “arbitrary deadlines” were known to me for about ten minutes before I wrote that post. And as for gay marriage, I’m less-than-impressed because he was so weasely about it. His neocon opponents are on his case for being pro civil-unions and against the amendment. I’m disappointed because he effectively took no stance at all, despite the fact that his home state is the current hotbed of debate. How aloof is that?

Well, as Apos notes, this is certainly Karl Rove’s view. However, for another view, see here:

(If you don’t like The Nation, then I believe Slate had an article covering some of the same ground that was linked to in a previous thread.)

Maybe?!?!?! You mean, he’d actually not just essentially have the regulated industries write all the regulations? Yeah, maybe that would be an improvement!

Simple answer: Al Gore without the charisma.

Longer answer: Kerry is a career politician with no moral core. He has flip flopped on major issues, trying to have it both ways. “I voted for it before I voted agains it.” In addition, his disgusting behavior in 1971 should disqualify him as a candidate. He asked for early discharge from Vietnam in order to run for office. And then spent months spreading lies that the U.S. committed worse atrocities in violation of the Geneva Convention than did the VC. He claimed such atrocities were common place and conducted with the full knowledge of the command structure. As he was an officer at the time, where is the record of him reporting such atrocities which would have been his duty? His “Winter Soldier” testimony contributed to a climate of hatred towards his fellow soldiers when then returned from serving our country. Despicable.

The topic of the thread is “How is he worse than Bush?” Unless you think Kerry would be even more divisive, that is. Why?

The Bush quotes I offered were in rebuttal to your suggestion that the tenor of an administration is reasonably predicted from the tenor of its campaign.
Now: The chief criticism I have of Kerry, after having him as Senator for so many years, is about his introversion (yes, really) and its consequences. It makes him cautious about everything he says in public, giving him the appearance of being a “consummate politician”, while keeping him from publicizing the work he does out of public view (**jshore’**s summary is good). Not having spent the time to cultivate people that an extrovert like Clinton would, he leaves too many people feeling snubbed or talked down to when (IMHO) he means nothing of the kind - he’s simply absorbed in policy wonkery. That shortage of political capital can make it harder for him to get things done, and inhibits his ability to be seen as an inspirational leader.

But we are comparison shopping. I *like * policy wonks when I’m considering who to hire to run the damn government. I’d take a technocrat who generally tries to do the right thing but occasionally stumbles over a clueless glad-hander who’ll drive us off the cliff while passing the beers any and every time.

As others have pointed out, this is largely due to the way Congress works – when you take a position for one thing, you’re also taking a position for another, and your opponents can use that against you as a result.

As an example, suppose there are two bills on the floor proposing a pay raise for the armed forces, one for $10 million and one for $20 million. Now suppose you, in a bount of generousity, vote against the first bill and vote for the second bill. Guess what George W. Bush’s commercials will claim? “Loopydude voted against a $10 million pay raise for the armed forces.” Technically correct, but taken out of context to make you look anti-military.

Similarly, look at this example from this week’s Time magazine:

So Kerry’s taking a stand here – if we’re going to rebuild Afghanistan, let’s do it without further increasing our deficit (fiscal responsibility!). When that idea was compromised, he voted against the bill, refusing to compromise his belief. But that’s not how the conservative pundits spin it.

Amen to that. I take perverse satisfaction in knowning that, heaven forbid, if George W. Bush wins in November, he’ll have to squirm for four years trying to clean up the mess he’s made in this term…